Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry’s tweet (CNBC 12
May) “Had frank discussions with President Putin & FM Lavrov over key
issues including Iran talks, Syria, Ukraine” is truly historic. For it could signal
a determination on President Obama’s part to use the last 17 months of his
presidency to usher in a period of cooperation in world affairs ending the
resurgent neo-conservatives’ push for a Unipolar world dominated by the US. If –
and it’s a big if - followed through, despite Republican opposition, there is
real hope that the US and the EU can work together with Russia to make the
Ukraine the benign hyphen joining the EU west and the Russian east of Europe that
it should be instead of the present bone of contention.

Distributing the blame

Part of the Anglo/American media are presenting
Kerry’s visit to Putin’s dacha in Sochi as a defeat for the Obama. But a change
for the better would be a victory for both, and above all for that rare
commodity, common sense. Hopefully the ‘West’s’ media will now come off its
all-prevailing mantra that the Ukraine crisis is ‘all Putin’s fault’ and at
last take into account what many ‘Western’ experts have long been saying about
how the blame for the Ukraine crisis lies with the EU and the US as well as with
Russia. There are two recent publications which deserve the attention they have
not had. The first is the 10 February report of the House of Lords Committee on
Foreign Affairs chaired by Lord Tugendhat. It declares that ‘Foreign Office [and
by extension the EU’s] shortcomings led to a catastrophic misreading of the
mood in the run-up to the Ukraine crisis’. The second is Professor Sakwa’s recent
monumental work ‘Frontline Ukraine’ evenhandedly distributing blame on the EU, on
President Putin, and on the US.

For months now noted historians John J.
Mearsheimer, Margaret Macmillan, and Tarik Cyril Amar have faulted US and EU
policies which have ignored Russia’s vital interests. As early as 8
September last year three former US Ambassadors to Russia/USSR signed a New
York Times Oped headlined 'Give Diplomacy a Chance' - Jack F. Matlock, Thomas
Pickering and James F. Collins.

EU,
US, Russia – their true national interests coincide

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's
annual news conference of 21 January and Mr. Gorbachev's grave warning of 29
January can now be seen for what they were – indications that Russia is
prepared to negotiate over the Ukraine provided its interests are respected.

Russia has a vital interest in the
Ukraine, the EU has a very important interest, the US has no political interest
provided the Ukraine is that benign hyphen. It was flouting Russia’s vital
national interest in the Ukraine that led to the present crisis. The call for
the Ukraine to join NATO was the last straw. And Mr. Putin, with his
understandable all but obsessive fear of the US, if defied reaches for his
sword; further defied, he uses it.

It is not only President Obama who is under pressure to end the present
stand off with Russia. President Putin too, is under pressure. The
assassination on 27 February of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsev, who had
openly deplored the policies that had brought civil war to the Ukraine, momentarily
revealed the depth of Russian middle class resentment of President Putin’s
alienation of ‘the West’. Putin is popular in Russia for standing up, as any
Russian President must, for Russia’s vital interests – not for a Ukrainian
civil war that’s in the interest of no one – particularly the hapless
Ukrainians. So if Putin is made an offer that Russia “cannot refuse”, he is
likely to take it.

Prospects
for agreement on the status of the Ukraine

Last year the stage was at last set for serious
negotiations about the shape of a Ukrainian settlement. For the European Union
(Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande) had begun direct talks about the
Ukraine with Russia (President Putin) without the US being directly involved,
yet with the involvement of all the Ukrainian parties. These ongoing discussions
could now have far greater potential to result in negotiations to end the civil
war and determine the future status of the Ukraine.

There is too, a growing awareness that
neither ‘the West’ nor Russia can afford to make more enemies than they already
have. They both need partners: think climate change, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. And
good EU/Russia relations will largely determine whether a much needed era of
cooperation replaces these times of confrontation. President Obama was right
when he famously remarked that in today’s world you can’t get much done without
Russia.

The shape of an agreement

In an article of mine before the
annexation of the Crimea (14 March 2014), I urged that negotiations be opened
which would include the lease of Russia's bases in the Crimea (Russia's No 1
vital interest in the Ukraine) being renewed in perpetuity as part of a
package. It’s too late for that now, but important Russian concessions over the
governance of the Crimea could still be sought in return for Russian agreement
on the whole package which would include Ukraine not joining any military
alliance.

Given Ukraine's economic plight due to
misgovernance and corruption, any package could include the EU matching Putin's
offer (since withdrawn) of $15bn in aid - the $30bn assessed as the Ukraine's
minimum requirement topped up with the IMF loan. Any preferential economic
treatment for the Ukraine to be granted to both the EU and Russia; a joint
EU/Russia commission for the Ukraine, based in Kiev, to signal any breach of
the agreement and to coordinate such an EU/Russia "Marshall Plan".
Obviously, all this would need to be fleshed out, but something along these
lines would provide the basis for the future status of the Ukraine. Such a
proposition would likely be received with relief by most Ukrainians – but they
would of course need to have the last word in a properly conducted referendum.

So all at once, after Mr. Kerry’s three
hours with Mr. Lavrov and four hours with President Putin, there is a real
prospect of a change of US and EU policies towards the Ukraine which could be
palatable to Russia. Now is up to the EU to have its own ‘Sochi’ moment’ with
Putin and Lavrov, and then work together with all the Ukrainian parties to make
of the Ukraine that essential hyphen joining the east and west of Europe.

But both the US and Russia are big ships
– and big ships are hard to turn around particularly when there are those on the
bridge who are trying seize the wheel: unipolar neo-conservatives in the US and
the KGB ‘Silovki’ who came in when Putin arrived on the world stage. It will be
hard for Kerry and Lavrov to keep the ear of their bosses. The media could do
much to help them.

About JP Diplomatic Consultancy

Our particular interest is in assisting those (probably in the media, academia, and in NGOs) who are encouraging the new U S administration to lead towards establishing at last that new era in international cooperation made possible by the end of the Cold War.

We believe that the planet cannot support this era of waste that began soon after Word War II. That means that capitalism - so effective in getting economic results - must be directed (by making it worthwhile) towards producing what is socially required to meet the existential challenges humanity now faces. Undirected capitalism leads to a reckless search profit from socially harmful activities. It is also largely responsible for the unsustainable age of waste we have lived through since World War II.

If the world is to move on from confrontation to cooperation and avoid the "endless wars" the Pentagon predicts over diminishing world resources, it will be essential to get the media to appreciate he issues. In all countries, politicians, the media and the public alike need to be persuaded of the need to get beyond the outmoded categories of "right or left", "progressive or conservative" and move away from traditional ideologies to a much more pragmatic world outlook. With the world for the first time facing existential challenges there must be a major effort to educate young and old alike - through the media, through schools and universities, through discussion with people of power, and in other ways. Much lobbying will also be needed.

While all countries have a fundamental national interest in working to resolve the immense and unprecedented challenges to humanity that all nations face, it will be hard indeed to avoid serious collisions in the jockeying for position. Further pinpointing areas of potential future conflict are urgently needed now.

And in particular, the U.S. will need a partner in a Europe - a post-Lisbon Europe with a single voice on the great matters - if Russia, China and the other major powers are to be persuaded that the policies of confrontation that have marked the last 8 years, are over, and that a cooperative approach to common problems must be pursued.

So high priority needs to be given for all measures leading towards European consensus in foreign affairs.